Rule 10 - Amendments
Rule 10 - Amendments
Rule 10 - Amendments
Part I. AMENDMENTS
TYPES OF AMENDMENTS:
JBD 163
AMENDMENT AS A MATTER OF RIGHT simply means that the party
has the unconditional action or right to amend his pleading.
The court has no right to prevent him from amending. The opposite
party has no right to oppose the amendment. If the court refuses to
admit the amended pleading such refusal is correctible by
mandamus.
Thus, the plaintif has the right to amend his/her complaint once at
any time before an Answer is served by the defendant or in case
of a reply to which no responsive pleading is provided by the rules,
within 10 days after said Reply is served.
JBD 165
In one case involving litigation over a parcel of land, the complaint
filed with the then CFI was a complaint alleging forcible entry. The
defendants filed a motion to dismiss alleging that the court has no
jurisdiction over an action for forcible entry. Without waiting for the
resolution of the motion to dismiss, the plaintiff filed an amended
complaint with new allegations which transformed the original
allegations of forcible entry into an action for quieting of title, an action
which at that time was cognizable by the CFI. The trial court admitted
the amended complaint, ordered the defendants to answer it and
denied the motion to dismiss. The SC sustained the trial court as being
consistent with the purpose and spirit of the Rules (Gumabay vs.
Baralin 77 SCRA 258).
JBD 166
AMENDMENT AS A MATTER OF JUDICIAL DISCRETION
Under R 10 Sec. 3 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Court, the trial court is
accorded sound discretion to grant or deny the admission of any
proposed substantial amendments to a pleading after a responsive
pleading has been filed. Generally, where the trial court has
jurisdiction over the case, proposed amendments are denied if
such would result in delay, or would result in a change of a
cause of action or defense or change the theory of the case, or
are inconsistent with the allegations in the original complaint.
(Vivian Locsin, et al., vs. Sandiganbayan, et al., GR No. 134458, August
9, 2007)
The clear import of Sec. 3 of Rule 10 is that under the 1997 Rules,
an amendment may now be allowed by the court even if it
substantially alters the cause of action or defense. Xxx. This rule
should only be true when, despite a substantial change or alteration in
the cause of action or defense, the amendments sought to be made
shall serve the higher interest of substantial justice, and prevent delay
and equally promote the laudable objective of the Rules which is to
secure a just, speedy, and inexpensive disposition of every action and
proceeding. (PPA vs. William GoThong & Aboitiz [WG&A], Inc. 542
SCRA 406 [2008])
Why discretionary-
JBD 167
After a responsive pleading is filed, an amendment to the complaint
may be substantial and will correspondingly require a substantial
alteration in the defenses of the adverse party. The
amendment of the complaint is not only unfair to the
defendant but will cause unnecessary delay in the
proceedings. Leave of court is thus, required. On the other hand,
where no responsive pleading has yet been served, no defenses would
be altered. The amendment of the pleading will not then require leave
of court (Siasoco vs. CA 303 SCRA 186).
Or, the defendant will say that he would like to change his defense.
I dont think the court will agree with that situation because it appears
that the motion to amend is already dilatory. Why did it take you one
year to realize that your cause of action or your defense is wrong? So
that is a limitation where the court may refuse to apply the principles
on liberality. The liberal policy becomes weaker or is working against
you the longer you delay your amendment because it might already be
interpreted to be dilatory.
Similarly, in an action for damages filed before the then CFI against
a sheriff for an alleged illegal levy upon the property of the plaintiff,
the latter sought to amend his complaint after an answer has been
served by the defendant. The amendment was made when the plaintiff
realized that the amount alleged as damages was below the
jurisdiction of the court. The SC held that it was error to admit the
amendment because the court must first acquire jurisdiction over the
subject matter of the complaint in order to act validly on the same
including its amendment (Gaspar v. Dorado 15 SCRA 331).
The rule here is when on its face, the complaint shows that the court
has no jurisdiction over the subject matter, the court has no authority
to act in the case. And if you move to amend it and ask the court to
allow the amendment, you are assuming that the court has the
authority to act on the case. But the court cant allow it because the
court has no authority to act. So the court even is not authorized to
allow the amendment because it has no authority to act in the first
place. How can you allow something when you do not have the
authority to act?
So according to the SC, when on its very face the complaint shows
that the court has no jurisdiction, the court has only one authority and
its only authority is to dismiss the case. So with that an amendment
cannot confer jurisdiction.
JBD 170
3.) WHEN THE AMENDMENT IS FOR THE PURPOSE OF CURING A
PREMATURE OR NON-EXISTING CAUSE OF ACTION
May a complaint that lacks a cause of action at the time it was filed
be cured by the accrual of a cause of action during the pendency of the
case?
This was the basic issue raised in one significant case (Swagman
Hotels and Travel Inc vs. CA, 455 SCRA 175). When the case was filed
none of the promissory notes subject of the action was due and
demandable but two of the notes became due during the pendency of
the action.
Sec. 5 of Rule 10 allows a complaint that does not state a cause of
action to be cured by evidence presented without objection during
the trial. The trial court ruled that even if the private respondent had
no cause of action when he filed the complaint for a sum of money and
damages because none of the three promissory notes was due yet, he
could nevertheless recover on the first two promissory notes which
became due during the pendency of the case in view of the
introduction of evidence of their maturity during the trial.
The court rules that such interpretation is erroneous. It further
said:
EXAMPLE: I will file today a case for damages arising from quasi-
delict. And then one or two months from now I will amend my
complaint from damages arising from culpa aquiliana to damages
arising from culpa contractual. Is that a different cause of action? Yes,
so the prescriptive period for culpa contractual is deemed filed next
month, not this month, because that is a different cause of action.
EXAMPLE: But suppose I file a case against you for culpa aquiliana,
and my claim is one million. Next month I amend my complaint for
damages from one million pesos to two million pesos. Did I change my
cause of action? No, it is still the same cause of actionculpa
aquiliana. Therefore, the prescriptive period is deemed interrupted as
of the date of the filing of the original complaint.
As plaintif-
As to defendant-
In the case of implied consent, the best example, then, is when the
defendant attempts to prove payment and the plaintiff FAILED TO
OBJECT. So there is now an implied consent by the parties. Therefore,
the case can now be tried on the issue as if they had been raised in the
pleadings. That is what we call the principle of estoppel. The
parties are in estoppel because they expressly or impliedly agreed to
try an issue which is not raised in the pleadings. The court will now
JBD 175
render judgment and discuss the evidence and discuss whether the
obligation has been paid or not.
So even after the judgment, you can amend the pleading in order to
harmonize with the evidence.
The last sentence, the court may grant a continuance to enable the
amendment to be made. Continuance means postponement. It
means, postponement of the case to allow the defendant to amend his
answer first.
JBD 176
Sec. 6. Supplemental pleadings. - Upon motion of
a party the court may, upon reasonable notice and
upon such terms as are just, permit him to serve a
supplemental pleading setting forth transactions,
occurences or events which have happened since the
date of the pleading sought to be supplemented.
The adverse party may plead thereto within ten (10)
days from notice of the order admitting the
supplemental pleading. (6a)
JBD 178
counterclaim or a cross-claim through oversight,
inadvertence, or excusable neglect, or when
justice requires, he may, by leave of court, set
up the counterclaim or cross-claim by amendment
before judgment.
JBD 179
everything stated in there. But if the original pleading is now
superseded, the original must be offered in evidence to prove an
admission found in the original but not anymore in the amended one.
That principle in now found in Section 8:
JBD 182
received in evidence against the pleader; and claims
and defenses alleged therein not incorporated in the
amended pleading shall be deemed waived.
Reviewer
Amendment Amended and Supplemental Pleadings (Rule10)
Amendments in general (See below)
a. Amendment as a matter of right
Rule 10, Sec. 2. Amendments as a matter of right.
A party may amend his pleading once as a matter of right at any time BEFORE a
responsive pleading is served or, in the case of a reply, at any time within ten (l0) days
after it is served.
NOTES:
1. The filing by the defendant of a motion to dismiss does not affect the plaintiffs
right to amend his complaint without first securing leave of court because a motion to
dismiss is NOT a responsive pleading.
2. Leave of court is necessary AFTER the filing of a responsive pleading. However, even
substantial amendments may be made under this Rule.
3. But such leave may be refused, if it appears to the court that the motion was made with
intent to delay.
c. Formal amendment
Rule 10, Sec. 4. Formal amendments .
JBD 184
A defect in the designation of the parties and other clearly clerical or typographical errors
may be summarily corrected by the court at any stage of the action, at its initiative or on
motion, provided no prejudice is caused thereby to the adverse party.
When issues not raised by the pleadings are tried with the express or implied consent
of
the parties
1. They shall be treated in all respects as if they had been raised in the pleadings;
2. Such amendment of the pleadings as may be necessary to cause them to conform to the
evidence may be made upon motion of any party at any time, even after judgment;
3. BUT failure to amend does NOT affect the result of the trial of these issues.
If evidence is objected to at the trial on the ground that it is not within the issues made
by the pleadings
1. The court may allow the pleadings to be amended;
2. It shall do so with liberality if the presentation of the merits of the action and the ends
of substantial justice will be subserved thereby;
3. The court may grant a continuance to enable the amendment to be made.
JBD 186